20 Comments

1. scott:

Why doesn’t Israel just shake the filthy dust of the UN off of its feet?Like anything will be done to Iran: please.

Oct 28, 2005 - 7:05 am 2. Ron:

If you think this sounds bellicose, just wait until this nut case gets a couple of atomic bombs. England had a chance to take care of Hitler in the 1930’s and didn’t and the butchers bill later was over 100 million. We let this nutcase go and there will be a price paid that will make us cry.

Oct 28, 2005 - 7:09 am 3. Former CNN Watcher:

I believe him when he says these things. After all he was speaking at a conference called “The World without Zionism.”

Israel better start warming up its fighter/bombers.

Oct 28, 2005 - 7:19 am 4. HenryB:

Unfortunately, short of using nuclear weapons, it’s unlikely that either the Israelis or the U.S. is capable of halting the Iranisn nuclear program. And, using nukes just is not going to happen unless the Iranians use one first (in which case Israel will have a really big problem, as it is surely the target of first choice to the madmen of Iran).

I keep wondering why the Russians don’t want the Iranians stopped, for Iran is surely a big supporter of the terrorism that the Russians have endured lately.

Henry B.

Oct 28, 2005 - 7:29 am 5. dubhail:

I agree with Henry B about Russia. It is strange. I seem to remember that Russian officials were suspected of taking bribes from Iran to sell them the Bushehr reactor. One wonders, especially in the light of recent UNSCAM revelations, wether senior Russian government officials might have been bought off by the Iranians. After all, they seem to be about the most corruptable politicians on the planet.

Oct 28, 2005 - 7:57 am 6. AlanC:

HenryB, I think that you are underestimating the options available in our arsenal.

I can’t vouch for Israel, but, we are quite capable of halting Iran without first nuke use. All we lack is the political will to do so.

Decapitation strikes at all Iranian Mullahs and the heads of the IRG, coupled with heavy strikes on all known “scientific” facilities. Would bring this horror to a halt.

However, given the current political environment I don’t expect anything like this due to squeamishness about “collateral” damage and various political repercussions.

If we wait too long nuclear war is a HIGH probability event. After all, it was about 5 years ago that the “moderate” Rafsanjani stated that as soon as Iran had the bomb Israel was a gonner cause any retaliation would only hurt Iran and Israel would be destroyed.

So, how long do we wait?

Oct 28, 2005 - 8:17 am 7. Ed Poinsett:

So, how long do we wait?

AlanC, we wait until the after the first attack by Iran. The lefties, most of the Congress, the MSM, the UN, will all act to tie our hands. The only thing we have going is Bush’s threat of preemptive attack, but it is a long haul to get enough support for one. The Israelis have significant firepower and resolve, but lack a decisive delivery capability. So, it is a wait between Iran collapsing of its own weight or its unleashing of a first strike. Regards

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:11 am 8. Coisty:

To the Russians this is all about geopolitics. They’ve lost much of their “near abroad”, as they call it, to US influence and a cozier relationship between Iran and Russia may be one of the consequences. On the other hand Russia is becoming a major energy supplier in Europe - they’re building a pipeline from Russia to Germany bypassing the Baltic states and Poland - and they are hoping for closer relations with Europe, especially Germany and France. They won’t want to hurt those relations by siding too much with the Iranian madman…but then again, how will the Europeans respond if the US decides to use force? Do France and Germany care that much if Iran goes nuclear?

Don’t forget China in all this. Last year the Chinese signed a $100 billion gas deal with Iran and the two are currently working on an oil deal. With China becoming ever more dependent on Iranian energy it is extremely unlikely to vote against Iran when the issue comes up at the UN. Despite what the Western free traders (or is that ‘traitors’?) say about China it is pursuing a mercantilist agenda designed to increase its power without much concern for the stability of the current international system. A China-Iran partnership may be likely. A China-Iran-Russia axis can’t be ruled out.

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:20 am 9. Fausta:

The lunatic raves on

and he’s not alone

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:41 am 10. gk:

I see it as yet another sign how weak the Iranian Islamic Regime is, that they have to keep stoking their hatred of Israel to distract their increasingly disatisfied populace. I believe Egypt’s autocrat in power, Hosni Mubarak, said pretty much the same thing.

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:58 am 11. George Purcell:

Given this madman’s declaration, the US has no choice but to declare Israel under the US nuclear umbrella and that any nuclear attack on her will be met with complete annihilation of the attacker.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:56 am 12. Bruce Wechsler:

AlanC: I’m with you on paragrpah 3 of your 8:17 post. (Proof: see my 9:47 am comment from the Roger’s first post on President I’m-mad-in-jihad” here: http://tinyurl.com/dxf9c

George Purcell: On declaring Israel under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, I say from your mouth to G-d’s ears. Unfortunately, if, for many Americans, the loss of 2000 soldiers’ is too high a cost for the liberty of tens of millions of muslims and a the potential for a positive sea change in the direction of the entire region, imagine how abhorent it would be to them to throw all of the US’ military weight behind a warning to Iran intended solely to prevent the destruction of that troublesome little Israel and a couple hundred thousand Jews.

It says so much about what the Muslim leaders of the world really care for the plight of their Palestinian brethren (not too mention the truth about the purported inestimably important to the Muslim world of “Al-Quds”) that they’d be willing to nuke the living daylights out of the area just to annihilate Jews.

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:34 am 13. Coisty:

Bruce Wechsler: “Unfortunately, if, for many Americans, the loss of 2000 soldiers’ is too high a cost for the liberty of tens of millions of muslims and a the potential for a positive sea change in the direction of the entire region, imagine how abhorent it would be to them to throw all of the US’ military weight behind a warning to Iran intended solely to prevent the destruction of that troublesome little Israel”

Did you send that message from Iraq or is your tour of duty over?

People don’t normally join the US and UK armed forces to engage in social engineering in the Islamic world. They usually join to protect their own country. Tragically the 2000 American and 100 or so British lives vomited out in Iraq will make those two nations less supportive of military actions that, unlike Iraq, might actually be required.

One of the tragedies of the Iraq war is that the Iranians may be in a stronger position than previously. A Shia-dominated government in a country with so much internal opposition may move closer to the mad mullahs in Tehran.

Incidentally, we should probably be grateful for Ahmadinejad’s candour. A more intelligent Iranian leader would take a low profile and send out the diplomats whilst getting on with the job of getting those nukes ready. This lunatic has has scored an own goal.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:12 pm 14. SJ:

Coisty, how do you know why people join the US and UK armed forces? And how do you know that the people who did join don’t believe that they ARE protecting their own countries by finally ridding the Middle East of a brutal mini Stalin whose power the West was in some ways responsible for? Or do you just think they are stupid for believing that?

But why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? Tell me what would happen in your perfect world if we hadn’t gone into Iraq. Are you actually suggesting Iran wouldn’t be pursuing their nuclear ambitions with the same vigor as they have been all along (and pre-Iraq war)? Okay, so then what? They have the bomb and make threats and Saddam Hussein is still in power in Iraq. What would your plan be and how is this horrifying situation remotely better than the one that exists now, where a democracy is taking shape in Iraq? And finally, your supposition about what an intelligent Iranian leader would do is uninformed on so many levels I don’t know where to begin.

Oct 28, 2005 - 3:15 pm 15. miguelj:

If this shitbag Ahmedinajad ever travels to Europe, couldn’t somebody seek a warrant from–oh, I don’t know–a Belgian judge, say, or maybe Baltasar Garzon in Spain, and have him arrested on charges of advocating genocide, which I’m sure has to be illegal under European law, no?

Not that this would actually succeed, of course, but the mere attempt would be good medecine.

Oct 28, 2005 - 3:29 pm 16. David [.net]:

arrested on charges of advocating genocide,

As president, I have no doubts he has taken substantive action. It’s closer to conspiracy to commit genocide. Or just a simple declaration of war.

Oct 28, 2005 - 4:42 pm 17. tcobb:

If you’re really cynical, the Russian stance makes a lot of sense. Just imagine, Iran gets a couple of nukes and uses one against Israel. For such a small country this would be utterly devastating and perhaps could destroy the very possibility of Israel remaining a viable state. The Israelis, who have their own nuclear weapons, will burn the major cities and military centers of Iran into green glass, but it is doubtful that Iran will be their only target. I suspect that if they are going down they will want to take a lot of local regimes with them such as Syria and Saudi Arabia.

And what will Russia have gained? They will have gotten rid of most of the governments in the Middle East so they can come on down for “humanitarian reasons” to provide aid to the survivors and end up dominating the region, and in the short term the price of oil would skyrocket, which would be of benefit to a major oil exporting country such as Russia.

Who knows?

Oct 28, 2005 - 5:46 pm 18. Kevin P:

Roger:

The Iranian president is only articulating what the bulk of the governments in the region want and it is the only logical opinion one can reach if you are taught from gradeschool that Jews use muslim blood in their religous ceremonies and that Jews are a lower form of life. yes. yes, I know that the Koran has different attitudes towards people of “the Book” and that there are moderate muslims all over the world do not share those thoughts but if you look at what many of the Governments in the region teach their children and what they spout on their government controlled media and entertainment shows the “wiping out” of Israel is not really a shocking sentiment. many of the muslim governments in the region do a wonderful job of sounding magnamous in their English statements to the world and bloodthirsty in their thoughts to their own people. There are even some who realize that the war against Israel is self defeating. But they are in the minority in the region. I am sure that some of the governments are pissed about what the Iranian president said but only because it was bad PR, not because they are shocked and appalled.

Oct 28, 2005 - 6:53 pm 19. Gary Rosen:

Coisty says if only we hadn’t invaded Iraq, everything would be hunky-dory with Iran now. Well, there’s no requirement here that you have to make sense.

Anyway, Coisty, how do the “Trotskyist neocons” fit in here, or should I say “hook-nosed cosmopolitan Trotskyist neocon wire-pullers”?

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:52 pm 20. HenryB:

AlanC (re: post at 10/28/2005 08:17).

I’m actually fairly familiar with the weapons in the U.S. arsenal. I’m also somewhat familiar with the recent “construction projects” that the Iranians have undertaken. Neither the U.S. nor the Israelis can take these out with conventional weapons, despite what some in the U.S. Air Force would like us to believe of their capabilities. We could try a series of decapitation strikes, but power is Iran is quite a bit more distributed than in Iraq, and our chances of success, I fear, are quite low (recall we tried to get Saddam a couple of times, but failed). BTW, the Israelis have basically the same capabilities as the U.S. for attacking hardened facilities: they’re in the process of purchasing 130 “bunker-buster” bombs from the U.S. Unfortunately, these weapons won’t “bust” the facilities that the Iranians have recently built.

Iran is a big problem, but I don’t see the U.S. has having many options for dealing with it. I’m sure that many of us hope that the mullahs will be removed by “the people” at some point, but it’s not clear to me that this will bring about wonderful results [though it likely could not get much worse], for as others have noted, these folk have been subjected to intense propaganda about Israel and the Jews for decades. Sometimes I think one course of action would simply be to bribe the Russians: they seem quite susceptible to such.

Oct 29, 2005 - 4:41 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: